Does what Epic Wants for App Stores What are other game Developers Actually Want? -
As mobile game and app developers struggle to breathe under the duopoly tax of 30% that players pay almost all mobile game revenues globally, Epic Games has emerged as the leader of the gaming community in its fight for open computing in mobile.
Privately, they asked large and small game studios alike what they wanted in a game, and here's the answers they gave to hear.
Background: The slow death of Open Computing, and the 30% tax on apps
The world of computing has never been more open than it is today. In the past the video game industry and developers have relied on open computing with PC and Mac platforms because it allows developers to release titles as they see fit, have an intimate relationship with their players as well as select payment methods that work for them. No gatekeepers were in place- just a computer, a player and a game. The world has changed.
Today, over half of the time spent on screens for computing is using mobile devices, a share that's growing -as well as nearly 100% of smartphone OS market share is divided between Apple as well as Google. Thanks to this domination on mobile market share as well as restrictive controls on distribution of games and online commerce, the realm of open computing is in peril like never before. This is causing a huge cost on both consumers as as game and app developers.
Case in point, both Google and Apple's app stores require a 30 percent cost for game sales and other games-related items that are distributed via their platforms. Apple is the sole control over the distribution of games and ecommerce through iOS devices. However, Google allows OEM marketplace applications and sideloading of mobile games, however, it severely limits third-party in-game payment for games that are distributed via Google Play.
Google Play does offer a payment integration service for third party companies to a limited number of game creators via its " user choice billing" pilot However "user option billing" is accompanied by expensive evergreen marketplace fees that range from 26% to 36%, even if you use your own payment provider and take on all of the responsibility and risk of payment.
The effect of Apple and Google's control over such a large share of computing worldwide is that there's a standard 30% tax on mobile games and applications, which is being paid by the players. It is held back from developers of games, and hinders open computing and ecommerce. Due to this stranglehold in open computing, developers of games big and small are convinced that they must change their ways.
What do game developers who Aren't Epic Want?
The staff at our company embarked in a long-running quest of a few months to talk with game studios small and large about what they would like to see happen in rules for mobile apps. While not everyone agreed on each aspect, these are the three most important things they told us they were looking for:
1. iOS to support sideloading games with no scare screens.
iOS has been restricted for a long time "sideloading" applications and games -- in which apps are downloaded from outside the App Store from the developer's website or a other market. The sideloading feature allows users to purchase and developers to distribute and sell games, in any way they choose and that the user agrees to comply with. Android does allow sideloading games and apps, but only with cumbersome warnings known in the form of "scare screens" that inform users of mobile phones about the dangers of "downloading software off the web." The majority of game designers we talked to believed that Apple should allow sideloading, and that Apple and Google should not use the over-the-top self-serving scare screens that denigrate distribution of software in other than their own apps stores.
2. Allow unlimited "steering" as well as embedded payments through third-party payment platforms.
Both Google and Apple restrict pricing as well as purchase options offered by third-party payment services outside the app stores. The same item could be available for an affordable price to the user, but game developers can't steer their players to those options, link to other purchases, or even embed the third-party experience of purchasing into their games. While many game developers who we talked to found tremendous benefit in using store apps, the general choice was to offer users and developers the ability to choose by doing away with steering and embedded payment restrictions.
3. 0% fee for steering and embedded payments.
The ability to allow steering and embedded payment is one thing, but as we've seen with Google's "user option billing" pilot, the ability to perform something as well as the incentive financially to do the thing are two separate factors. The pilot of "user choice billing" featuring a still-massive 26% charge for payments made through third-party payment providers in addition to the charges those providers charge, this amounts to no gain for most game designers. Game developers that we spoke to believed that zero was an appropriate amount for transactions not in the app store. However, many did seem supportive that there be some type of financial reward for the app stores helping to drive the downloading and use of games. However the cut of 26% of all third-party transactions for the rest of time is quite different from the notion that game designers thought would be fair.
What's next?
Although there are numerous nuanced wants around how the app stores function that developers want to hear about, three wants constitute the root of what developers feel would drive true change in open computing on mobile devices.
About
